Old habits are hard to break. And the mainstream media has been inaccurately reporting about homosexuality and gender confusion for a long time.

A “progressive” takeover of journalism schools and professional “standards” often drive the bold-faced lies. The overreach is desperately deceptive and most Americans recognize the constant propaganda as undisguised manipulation.

CNN’s embarrassing, one-sided townhall on “LGBT” issues with Democratic candidates presented a horrifying glimpse into the dark hearts of these very foolish people. Politicians who proudly support deviance have risen to leadership in America and appeal to a sizeable segment.

But promoting personal and societal destruction puts America in danger. Outlets that claim objectivity are far from it and we need to keep calling them out.

The reporting about the October 8 Supreme Court oral arguments on the Harris funeral home case illustrates the point. So let’s use this event and look at the five major flaws in mainstream media “LGBT” reporting.

1. Visuals present one side only

Virtually every photo displayed by major media outlets from October 8th demonstrations at the Supreme Court featured homosexuals and “trans” supporters, like “Civil Rights for All!” (with rainbow colors). Where were the images of truth, those standing bravely for sanity and against sexual tyranny? They were present and visible but you’d never know it from mainstream optics.

Reuters featured a photo of union supporters: “I [heart] my union—AFGE Pride,” adorned with rainbow colors. AFGE is a government workers’ union.

ABC News ran a large photo of a people holding the letters, “LGBTQ RIGHTS” and another of demonstrators lining a stairway with posters reading, “Protect LGBTQ Workers.”

CNN led with a huge rainbow graphic and included a small photo of demonstrators whose sign read, “Faith for Equality.”

Newsweek included a map of U.S. states, “Where LGBTQ+ people are protected in the workplace.” How about revealing “Where Christians are denied religious freedom”?

Conservative voices were present with signs expressing support for traditional values: “#sexnotgender” and “Transwomen are MEN,” but their presence was virtually ignored by the mainstream press. So were the childish hecklers attempting to drown out moms who told heartbreaking stories about their children being fast-tracked into body mutilation.

2. Biased headlines /phrases

NY Times headline, “Supreme Court Considers Whether Civil Rights Act Protects L.G.B.T. Workers” unveils two common, flawed assumptions-- that people who identify as “LGBT” possess an unchangeable trait like race (instead of a chosen and variable preference). And two, that those involved have no civil rights now and are “unprotected.”

The obvious follow-up question is seldom explored. What “protection” is the goal? What homosexual activists want is for people to be compelled to approve, including a ban on objections. And illogically, several reporters made a common but flawed argument—that a lack of mention of “sexual orientation” and “gender Identity” in law equals discrimination.

No, it reflects biology. These are behaviors and objectively measured, harmful ones.

In a rigid new “progressive” America, freedom for authentic Christian faith, free speech about moral objections, and even reality will vanish.

Washington Post (AP) used the term “LGBT people” several times in their article, presuming the “born that way” claim. No science supports innate homosexual leanings or people born in the “wrong sex body.” But journalists refuse to relinquish the myth. Reuters used “LGBT people” as well.

Someone tell the Washington press corps: people with these preferences are not separate types of humans.

Newsweek openly cheers for one side: “Advocates fear the new conservative majority of the court will strike a blow against LGBTQ rights in the cases…”

CNN: “The Supreme Court grappled at times on Tuesday with historic cases that could impact millions of LGBTQ Americans.” What about Christians? Parents? Girls in locker rooms? Crickets. And the stories were peppered with deceitful pronouns and descriptors. Aimee Stephens, central to the high court case, is a man, not a "transgender woman."

3. Pro-homosexual references and respect

In the AP Washington Post article, they quote the pro-homosexual Williams Institute as a resource.

David Cole, an ACLU lawyer, is quoted by name, but no identity for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). They are called “lawyers for the employers.”

CNN: “How the justices rule could have critical implications for the LGBTQ community made up of approximately 1 million workers who identify as transgender and 7.1 million lesbian, gay and bisexual workers, according to UCLA's Williams Institute.” Nothing about the implications for women in restrooms, children in libraries, or workers who see these as immoral, unhealthy behaviors and don’t want to be forced to respect them.

Also from CNN, the last four paragraphs of its article are spent refuting conservative claims about employment discrimination, using questionable information from the Human Rights Campaign and National Transgender “surveys.”

4. One-sided personal stories where “LGBT” laments go unchallenged

The Reuters article carried four “LGBT” testimonies and no personal stories from the other side, only an opinion from a harsh-sounding Christian from Kansas.

This article also repeated half-baked talking points about transgender “murders,” bemoaning 18 such deaths this year. With no other information, it’s a useless statistic. Were they murdered by raving Trump supporters? Or johns furious that a prostitute turned out to be a male? Prostitutes are always at high risk of violence. Lazy, biased or both, this is activism, not journalism.

5. Key facts omitted

Newsweek was one of the few outlets to reveal that 133 protesters about “LGBT” housing were arrested by Capitol police during the Supreme Court demonstrations. This group carried a huge banner, “Human Rights for All!” and then sat down in the street. The Newsweek article proceeded to gush with sympathy for their viewpoint.

ABC News did nothing to challenge an inane comment by Justice Elena Kagan. Referring to gender-confused Aimee Stephens, Kagan said, “The claim here is that Harris Homes is treating her differently because the sex assigned at birth. That’s discrimination because of sex.”

No, it’s not. Stephens was born a male and sex is not “assigned” but revealed at birth. Why can’t the truth be told?

Let’s keep pushing back on deceptive, harmful reporting. America deserves the truth about the risk of these behaviors and this movement’s plans for tyranny.

SHOW COMMENTS

Please Note: We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses
the content. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at the author or other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will
not be approved.